LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2 coming for 360

[Sarkus]

So says EA, though they are saying it's not a port of the PC game but rather a "reimagining" using the console controller. :?

One good thing is voice support.

[warning]

Wow.  An RTS controlled with a gamepad?  I can't see that working too well.

[Knightshade Dragon]

Check the front page for the official announcement and the first two screenshots.

[Bullwinkle]

Wow. An RTS controlled with a gamepad? I can't see that working too well.

Actually, Goblin Commander handled it pretty well.  Still, I can't imagine that the game won't somehow be compromised to make it console-friendly.  Doesn't mean it won't be good, though...

[Laner]

Starcraft for the N64 was decent, if not great.

[Calvin]

I am interested in this because I think it would look fantastic, but I am worried about the control.

[Sarkus]

I sometimes get invited to a MS focus group and they asked us about RTS's on a console the last time I attended.  We all said they needed a new control scheme and that a traditional controller would never work.  I wonder if that was in relation to this game.

[Bullwinkle]

Sounds like it.  

Here's a big article talking up how the 360 version isn't really a port, but a "reimagining."  I know that sounds like marketing babble, but this guy (one of the designers of C&C, btw) talks about how he tried to design a console RTS as though they had never existed for the PC.  So instead of cramming mouse-like control into a controller, he claims that they've come up with something that works natively and intuitively with the controller.  He seems really proud of it.

Linky:http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060113/cifaldi_01.shtml

[stiffler]

Dear Microsoft,

Please remove the stick from your ass and allow developers to implement mouse support in games on your platform.

Sincerely,
Gamers

[Graham]

Sounds like it.  

Here's a big article talking up how the 360 version isn't really a port, but a "reimagining."  I know that sounds like marketing babble, but this guy (one of the designers of C&C, btw) talks about how he tried to design a console RTS as though they had never existed for the PC.  So instead of cramming mouse-like control into a controller, he claims that they've come up with something that works natively and intuitively with the controller.  He seems really proud of it.

Linky:http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060113/cifaldi_01.shtml

Sounds like a control scheme similar to BattleZone or Uprising.

[corruptrelic]

Personally a big title like that I just can't see it being controlled by a console controller.
It's as bad (if not worse) as trying to control a first person shooter with just one analog stick. (Ie, the PSP)

Microsoft has been so dead set on making the xbox "nothing like a PC" that they are taking away things that could give it so much more potential.
If somebody doesn't want a mouse and keyboard that's cool, they just don't have to spend extra money on them.
But for those of us that want them, it's there as an OPTION.
The dreamcast did it perfectly, IMO. Games played with the standard controller, but if you wanted a better gaming experience you'd opt for the dreamcast mouse and keyboard combo.

The playstation 2 supports usb mouse and keyboard as well, only a couple games take advatnage of them but point is, they are there as an option for us.
The PS3 will be the same way, supporting mouse and keyboard. They should have just ported it to the PS3 and included optional mouse support, would make it so much easier.
It's no suprise whey are there are so few RTS games on consoles.

[warning]

Dear Microsoft,

Please remove the stick from your ass and allow developers to implement mouse support in games on your platform.

Sincerely,
Gamers

Agreed!  Especially when they provide an adaptor to allow the 360 to connect to VGA computer monitors.  Helloooo?

[Canuck]

Honestly I think the real problem for console RTS games in the past was not the lack of mouse support but rather the terrible resolution.    RTS is all about controlling  ridiculous numbers of tiny little units and in the past it just wasn't really feasible to do it on a normal tv.  But now with HD tv's it shouldnt be as much of a problem.  I think we'll see more RTS games out this generation (and if people by them, then the PS3 will probably support the mouse and keyboard for all games)

[philosophist_]

Honestly I think the real problem for console RTS games in the past was not the lack of mouse support but rather the terrible resolution.    RTS is all about controlling  ridiculous numbers of tiny little units and in the past it just wasn't really feasible to do it on a normal tv.  But now with HD tv's it shouldnt be as much of a problem.  I think we'll see more RTS games out this generation (and if people by them, then the PS3 will probably support the mouse and keyboard for all games)

I don't know. I did all right with Warcraft 2 and Command and Conquer at 640x480.

[Turtle]

Anyone remember the game Sacrifice?  Add that to the list of RTS control schemes that could work on a console, alongside Uprising and Battlezone.

[warning]

Anyone remember the game Sacrifice?  Add that to the list of RTS control schemes that could work on a console, alongside Uprising and Battlezone.

Now Sacrifice was a great game!  I'm glad someone else played it!

Actually I think the Revolution controller would be amazing for RTS games.  It's the most mouse-like controller (besides an actual mouse of course).

[corruptrelic]

Actually I think the Revolution controller would be amazing for RTS games. It's the most mouse-like controller (besides an actual mouse of course).

Except the Revolution may not be able to handle games that powerful considering it's only going to be "about 3 times as powerful" as the gamecube with no HD support.

[Scott]

I don't know. I did all right with Warcraft 2 and Command and Conquer at 640x480.

What were the prevoius consoles best?  480p mostly.  So, at the best, the XBox and PS2 could barely get to the Warcraft 2 levels, assuming a good TV.

I think a lot of the problem was the graphics, and the clarity of the game world.  If people can enjoy first person shooters on consoles, a game genre that tacks very accurate movements with analog controls, there isn't any reason RTS games can't succeed either, as they require the same, or even less accurate controls.  With so many buttons on the various controllers that can open build menus, unit orders, etc., I think a 720p RTS game could work pretty well on the PS3 or 360.

[warning]

Seriously the game would have to be redesigned for the gamepad or the controller would have to be redesigned for the game.  The standard dual-analog controller is much too imprecise for modern RTS games where you have dozens (hundreds?) of units on the screen at once and you have to be able to instantly select units or groups of units and give them commands at a moments notice.

[Scott]

The standard dual-analog controller is much too imprecise for modern RTS games where you have dozens (hundreds?) of units on the screen at once and you have to be able to instantly select units or groups of units and give them commands at a moments notice.

How is this much different then an FPS game, and shooting distant enemies, or small flying enemies?  Why can't the game slow down or pause for commands?  Why can't the cursor snap to your troops as you move over them to help auto select?  I just don't see a huge reason why it can't be done without some minor tweaks.

I think the reason we haven't seen more RTS games on the consoles is that developers just don't think the console audience will support that many strategy games.  How many strategy games are there out there?  Most current strategy games look like crap too, with low budgets and production values, targetting very niche audiences.  Are there any big budget strategy games out there, let alone RTS games for consoles?

Anyway, I doubt control issues are the main problem.  Most likely its been resolution and the worry that console gamers, would like twitch games, won't want a lot of strategy games.  Its great someone is going to try.  Sure, the game won't control as well on a PC, but not many console games do control as well as a on a good PC.

[Purge]

Right analog to scroll the window view N/W/E/S. Left joystick to snap to centre and move the cursor around the screen. Hold RT to select troops under cursor. I dunno, I can see how it could work. Use the directional pad for cycling through home bases, or switching menus / menu items.

You still have LT, two shoulder buttons, four face buttons and select/start for interface controls. Oh, and joystick buttons too.

Rather than trying to build an interface based on 2 buttons and precision mobility, focus on the usability of the controller and reduce the reliance on pinpoint accuracy for the pointer.

side note : the multiplayer aspect would get tricky with the slowdown thing.

[Scott]

side note : the multiplayer aspect would get tricky with the slowdown thing.

Then just drop the slow down for orders stuff.  Lots of PC RTS titles let users pause or slow the game down at times, but when playing another person, that all goes away.  Each person then has the same disadvantages, so it works out.

[Turtle]

Full Spectrum Warrior and Brothers in Arms.  FSW really is a real-time strategy/tactical game but you command from ground level instead of from overhead.

Although BiA was billed as a shooter more than a strategy game, it certainly fits as a pure strategy game.  In fact, I'd almost have preferred it if I didn't have to shoot at all in the game.

Anyway, we already have RTS games on the consoles, just nothing like traditional computer RTS games.  That's not a bad thing either, as the traditional computer RTS games have been stagnating as of late.

[Zinfan]

It's been a long time since I played it but how about Myth from Bungie for a control system?  Even on the PC you had to control things using one button, it took awhile to figure out but once you got it it seemed quite usable (even if they did later add a patch to take advantage of a 2 button scheme).  Loved the exploding dwarfs!